[OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Jukka Rahkonen]

David Groom <reviews at ...> writes:

> I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ".  From my 
> interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any 
> amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free of 
> any copyright or database rights.
> 
> Currently the compressed planet file is 5.1Gb, and for instance the 
> compressed extracts for Germany's data is 368Mb, and for the UK 115Mb.  So 
> the UK data represents  2.25% of the data, and Germany's data represents 
> 7.2% of the data.
> 
> I would have thought it would be hard to argue that 2.25% is "substantial", 
> so if the ODbl was adopted would be effectively be allowing the extraction 
> of the whole of the UK data to occur free of any copyright?


Well, OS and other European national mapping agencies will be following EU
database directive. No need to worry that "non-substantial" will mean anything
else than "worthless". Read the phrasing (this is from Odbl):

"Substantial" – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of
insubstantial parts of the Data may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation
of a Substantial part of the Data.

"Substantial in quality" means that UK is substantial.  London is for sure
substantial, as well as a small town. A village may be substantial. All
McDonald's together are substantial.  One street in London is perhaps
non-substantial. And if someone makes a map and tries to sell it, there will be
somebody saying that the amount of data must be substantial in quantity and
quality, how else it would be enough for making a map?